I WILL DO MY BEST. BUT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER.
The question poses a false dichotomy.
A socialist economy is logically impossible, and demonstrably impossible since the socialist method of production provides neither incentives, nor the pricing system necessary for the competitive satisfaction of wants and needs. We don’t have a choice of a socialist economy.
Instead, the question is, given that a MIXED economy appears to be necessary to satisfy:
(a) the requirement for providing people with incentives to participate in needed work regardless of their preference for work;
AND
(b )the means of economic calculation and planning in real time provided by money and prices;
AND
(c) to provide sufficient redistribution to satisfy the demand for state intervention, and to prevent the lower classes from rebellion, and to reduce the cost of their suppression;
THEREFORE
which BIAS do you prefer: i) greater retention of profits in the hands of those who produce it, OR ii) greater distribution of profits to those who do not produce it. With the understanding that labor is of declining and near zero value, and that ORGANIZING PRODUCTION dynamically in real time under constant risk is the challenging part of the economy, not the labor involved in production which is at best a commodity that is easily replaced.
The problem does not appear to be which mixed economy, but the intergenerational transfer of wealth dependent upon constant economic growth, while at the same time such redistributive wealth suppresses breeding rates of the most productive individuals. As such societies must ‘feed the ponzi scheme’ by immigrating a permanent underclass as the native population shrinks.
The germans have probably developed the superior model: make sure your working class is the worlds best working class, and the upper classes will take care of the rest. The American model looks like a failure since trying to get everyone to join the middle class (of independent professionals) is not possible because not enough people possess the genetic talents to fulfill those positions without training via repetition that is greater in cost than the benefit produced.
That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.
So since I cannot prefer a socialist, and there is no capitalist economy extant, and the only economies that do exist other than the very impoverished countries, are mixed, I prefer a mixed economy, since it is the only choice available. But I prefer one that does not depend on a genetic ponzi scheme.
The question poses a false dichotomy.
A socialist economy is logically impossible, and demonstrably impossible since the socialist method of production provides neither incentives, nor the pricing system necessary for the competitive satisfaction of wants and needs. We don’t have a choice of a socialist economy.
Instead, the question is, given that a MIXED economy appears to be necessary to satisfy:
(a) the requirement for providing people with incentives to participate in needed work regardless of their preference for work;
AND
(b )the means of economic calculation and planning in real time provided by money and prices;
AND
(c) to provide sufficient redistribution to satisfy the demand for state intervention, and to prevent the lower classes from rebellion, and to reduce the cost of their suppression;
THEREFORE
which BIAS do you prefer: i) greater retention of profits in the hands of those who produce it, OR ii) greater distribution of profits to those who do not produce it. With the understanding that labor is of declining and near zero value, and that ORGANIZING PRODUCTION dynamically in real time under constant risk is the challenging part of the economy, not the labor involved in production which is at best a commodity that is easily replaced.
The problem does not appear to be which mixed economy, but the intergenerational transfer of wealth dependent upon constant economic growth, while at the same time such redistributive wealth suppresses breeding rates of the most productive individuals. As such societies must ‘feed the ponzi scheme’ by immigrating a permanent underclass as the native population shrinks.
The germans have probably developed the superior model: make sure your working class is the worlds best working class, and the upper classes will take care of the rest. The American model looks like a failure since trying to get everyone to join the middle class (of independent professionals) is not possible because not enough people possess the genetic talents to fulfill those positions without training via repetition that is greater in cost than the benefit produced.
That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.
So since I cannot prefer a socialist, and there is no capitalist economy extant, and the only economies that do exist other than the very impoverished countries, are mixed, I prefer a mixed economy, since it is the only choice available. But I prefer one that does not depend on a genetic ponzi scheme.
https://www.quora.com/Which-one-do-you-prefer-a-socialist-or-capitalist-economy